Berkeley Law bans AI for drafting, editing, exams; allows research only
Law school policy effective Summer 2026 prohibits generative AI for conceptualizing through editing student work, citing need to preserve core legal skills.
What to know
- Berkeley Law prohibits AI for all stages of student work—from conceptualizing and outlining through drafting, editing, and translating—effective Summer 2026.
- AI is permitted only for research purposes (identifying sources) and instructors can opt out for courses intentionally teaching AI fluency.
- The policy rests on the principle that independent thinking and legal reasoning are irreplaceable skills lawyers must develop, not offload to machines.
- The restrictions apply to all exams and prohibit uploading course materials into generative AI systems.
The policy is a sensible defense of core legal skills and independent thinking that AI cannot replace.
-
“In case you are an academic who is currently being gaslit into believing that you're a caveman who wants their students to be jobless if you resist allowing AI in your classrooms... I present to you Berkeley Law's response”
leecarpenter.bsky.social · Bluesky
“AI use is prohibited for aid in conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, or editing any work submitted for credit.”
UC Berkeley Law School, AI Policy rule · Berkeley Law website
UC Berkeley Law School Institution enacting policy
The record 2 articles and posts · last 30 days
- summary covers to here · Aug 20, 7:09 PM · 1 piece above arrived after
What people are saying 9 voices from 3 sites · best of 11 · verbatim
- Aug 21
-
I think I can understand the reasoning behind most of those rules, but the prohibition against AI translation of papers not in English is a bit puzzling. Do they expect students to do their own translations in all cases?
- Aug 20
-
> Future lawyers may need to use artificial intelligence (“AI”) fluently. But the current state of the technology requires that AI use be coupled with the cognitive skills necessary to strategically deploy the technology, to critically assess its work product, and to uphold ethical obligations to clients and to the legal system.So, not today…
-
Banning Ai outside of the classroom is impossible, like telling students they cannot use google for take-home tests. Students will always find ways to circumvent these restrictions.
-
I’m curious how they draw the line for spelling and grammar checking. I’ve never seen a law school (or other graduate program) prohibit standard spell-checking or grammar-checking in software.
-
My understanding is that this is analogous to AI use policies within many law firms. Using AI-powered search tools as part of research is usually allowed; using generative AI to draft or rewrite content is usually not.(Given the importance of confidentiality, law firms also tend to be pretty picky about which tools their staff use.)
-
Maybe this is obvious or overly reductive, but that rings well for me too and sounds so much like early (and still wise) guidance for Wikipedia and maybe the Internet at large.
-
> AI can be used for research on papers ONLY for the limited purpose of identifying sources, such as cases, statutes, or secondary sources. Students are responsible for the accuracy of their research and all other aspects of their submitted work.Absolutely level-headed policy. Whoever came up with this deserves some serious praise.
-
S
Wydział Prawa uniwersytetu Berkeley dał szeroki katalog dopuszczalnych zastosowań LLM w nauczaniu (zero): https://www. law.berkeley.edu/academics/reg istrar/academic-rules/artificial-intelligence-policy/ IMO bdb podejście.
- Aug 19
-
L
In case you are an academic who is currently being gaslit into believing that you're a caveman who wants their students to be jobless if you resist allowing AI in your classrooms... I present to you Berkeley Law's response, which can be summarized as "Fuck off directly into the sun."